Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The SHOT ShowCase (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=272)
-   -   Battle Rifle? Do You Really Need One? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1304758)

Restless28 01-01-2011 11:07

Battle Rifle? Do You Really Need One?
 
The MBR, or battle rifle topic is all over the web. From what I read, most folks say that a MBR has to be a .308. I'm assuming the MBR is supposed to be a SHTF gun.

Why would you need a MBR if you're readily equipped with an AR15 or AK47 if SHTF? Aren't this both more than capable if you had to fight?

fran m 01-01-2011 11:12

Those should be fine. Well, they should be if you are not overly paranoid. Who would want to be shot with either.

Glockdude1 01-01-2011 11:16

Best to have it, than NEED it at a bad time.

:cool:

ArmoryDoc 01-01-2011 11:18

I am very comfortable with a quality M4.

hogfish 01-01-2011 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless28 (Post 16562607)
The MBR, or battle rifle topic is all over the web. From what I read, most folks say that a MBR has to be a .308. I'm assuming the MBR is supposed to be a SHTF gun.

Why would you need a MBR if you're readily equipped with an AR15 or AK47 if SHTF? Aren't this both more than capable if you had to fight?


I thought those were both MBRs (equivalents?), just not in .308win. :dunno:

AK_Stick 01-01-2011 11:23

the term MBR, is mostly a term used by shooters to differentiate between 7.62 caliber rifles, and 5.56 "assault" rifles.


The full power rifles have their place, but they're usually heavy, less accurate, and more expensive than their smaller brethren.

If you have a quality AR/AK, than no, you don't "need" a MBR. They'll do everything a 7.62 caliber rifle will do.

.45Super-Man 01-01-2011 11:27

I think the MBR comes into its own if you're talking about one rifle to do everything. The ability to hunt or take out a threat at 500+yds is where the MBR has an advantage over the AK or AR.

mesteve2 01-01-2011 11:29

I don't need it or want one to carry...
 
I would get one if we had open carry.

Smashy 01-01-2011 11:32

I wouldn't say you necessarily need a MBR, but they're awesome and I just like having one. They do have a couple of advantages, like more power if you need it and longer range.

My primary SHTF rifles would be my SKSs. They're probably enough to get me through any situation. But if I want something more, my MBR is my 8mm Egyptian Hakim. Some might say it's a bit much, but if an SKS isn't enough, I know there's always a bigger bat in the closet. Perhaps the thugs who want my generator in a SHTF situation have an AK. 25 rounds of 8mm in a light-recoiling semi-auto (fast follow up shots) might change their minds.

Here it is with a 10 round mag...

http://i863.photobucket.com/albums/a...ha37/010-1.jpg

And here's a 25 round mag...

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...ot2755/004.jpg

Here's a short video showing how the light recoil makes it easy to stay on target (no, it's not me in the video)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjobet41qmQ

But like I said, I'm still fine with my SKSs. Having a MBR is just another plus.

Deaf Smith 01-01-2011 11:35

Well since I'm not in the military and any ammo has to be carried by ME, then the AR is fine for my 'Homeland Defense Rifle(HDR). I have a Bushie 'M4' style with the collapsable stock replaced with a fixed one and a 20 round mag in a buttstock pouch. Just grab the AR with a mag in the gun and one on the stock.

And my M1 Carbine is the house version (and I would not worry to much if that was my ONLY HDR.)

But with the AR there is so many parts and gizmos available.

But I sure don't need to lug around a 11 lb rifle (fully loaded) and 80 rounds in mags weighing a ton.

But if others want a .308/7.62x51 like a M1A or FAL, go for it. Just make sure you can actually run around with 100 rounds of .308 on you (100 rounds of 5.56 fits in a much handier and lighter package.)

Deaf

doktarZues 01-01-2011 11:38

You gain range and penetration, both huge advantages. You lose quite a bit of mobility as most of them are significantly heavier than AKs/ARs. For anyone that has actually carried a "MBR" at the ready for longer than the walk from your tailgate to the firing line you know that the weight of a gun makes a HUGE difference.

I personally don't think that everyone NEEDS a "battle rifle" and the question doesn't fall far from 9MM vs 45 or AR vs AK--different strokes for different folks.

jhooten 01-01-2011 11:46

Let's review some type of individual infantry arms.

A battle rifle is a military service rifle that fires a full power rifle cartridge, such as 7.62x51mm NATO.[citation needed] While the designation of battle rifle is usually given to post-World War II select fire infantry rifles such as the H&K G3, the FN FAL or the M14, this term can also apply to older military bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles such as the Mosin Nagant, Lee-Enfield or the M1 Garand

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.


A submachine gun (SMG) is an automatic carbine, designed to fire pistol cartridges. It combines the automatic fire of a machine gun with the cartridge of a pistol.

A personal defense weapon (often abbreviated PDW) is a compact semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearm similar in most respects to a submachine gun, but firing an (often proprietary) armor-piercing round, giving a PDW better range, accuracy and armor-penetrating capability than submachine guns, which fire pistol-caliber cartridges. The class of weapon as it exists today evolved as a hybrid between a submachine gun and a carbine, retaining the compact size and ammunition capacity of the former while adding the ammunition power, accuracy and penetration of the latter.

Each is a different tool with a specific role to fill.

The internet commandos want call everything they intend to save the world with as an MBR. Some even go so far as to ask if a 22LR would make a good MBR. No, it won't

AK_Stick 01-01-2011 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by doktarZues (Post 16562760)
You gain range and penetration, both huge advantages. You lose quite a bit of mobility as most of them are significantly heavier than AKs/ARs. For anyone that has actually carried a "MBR" at the ready for longer than the walk from your tailgate to the firing line you know that the weight of a gun makes a HUGE difference.

I personally don't think that everyone NEEDS a "battle rifle" and the question doesn't fall far from 9MM vs 45 or AR vs AK--different strokes for different folks.


Realistically, how much range do you think you actually gain?

Since the 5.56 weapons are typically more accurate, and recoil less, as well as accept scopes better, I would challenge that while the 7.62 carries more energy, the 5.56 is probably going to be the more effective choice at most distances. Especially considering the general lack of accuracy I see from most shooters, I don't think the majority could employ a 7.62 rifle well enough to enjoy the slight ballistic advantage is brings to the table.


Secondly, what good is penetration really in terms of a SHTF rifle? I know people toss around how a 7.62 will go through a cinder block, and a 5.56 won't. But in all my years as a soldier, I've yet to see someone shoot through a wall to get to the guy on the other side. Typically, if you can't see them, you can't hit them. Plus most things that stop 5.56, will stop 7.62. The notable exception being some body armor that will stop 7.62 ball, will not stop some various flavors of 5.56.

12131 01-01-2011 11:57

"Need" should be deleted from any self-respecting gun owner's vocabulary.:supergrin:

AK_Stick 01-01-2011 11:58

I would challenge, that due to the evolving world of combat, that the term "battle rifle" would apply to the full size rifles fielded, regardless of caliber.

The M-16, is todays battle rifle, combat has evolved to the point where the 7.62 no longer rules the battle field.

Petrie 01-01-2011 12:05

Don't ARs win at Camp Perry all the time? They are shooting at targets 500yds away with irons aren't they? Are guys who pick a 7.62 x 51 chambered rifle imagining that they'll be shooting the guys with ARs from far enough away that the AR can't reach them? I think an AR or AK will serve the average internet comando just fine. :supergrin:

Jon_R 01-01-2011 12:08

I like to cover my basis so I have rifle caliber carbines (.223, 7.62x39), pistol caliber carbines (9mm .30 Carbine), magazine fed battle rifles (.308 .303), and clip fed battle rifles (30-06). For the most part I own things because I like them and they are fun to shoot but if things went really bad I would use any of them.

I have a few people in my family that know how to run ARs so maybe they would get those and I would haul around my M1A SOCOM 16.

rca256 01-01-2011 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by doktarZues (Post 16562760)
You gain range and penetration, both huge advantages. You lose quite a bit of mobility as most of them are significantly heavier than AKs/ARs. For anyone that has actually carried a "MBR" at the ready for longer than the walk from your tailgate to the firing line you know that the weight of a gun makes a HUGE difference.

I personally don't think that everyone NEEDS a "battle rifle" and the question doesn't fall far from 9MM vs 45 or AR vs AK--different strokes for different folks.

I'll take that a step further. Anyone who has not humped 180 round of 7.62mm NATO around for a couple of days, step to the left side of the bus. Those who have humped 100+ rounds of 7.62mm NATO know what I am talking about, namely that a 20 round magazine of ammo weighs a lot more, is a lot larger, and is only appreciated when you actually want to shoot something. Ah, but then it is all worth while... :)

gator378 01-01-2011 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless28 (Post 16562607)
The MBR, or battle rifle topic is all over the web. From what I read, most folks say that a MBR has to be a .308. I'm assuming the MBR is supposed to be a SHTF gun.

Why would you need a MBR if you're readily equipped with an AR15 or AK47 if SHTF? Aren't this both more than capable if you had to fight?

Although I have and prefer the 308 I would not turn down an AR or AK both of which have proven track records. today there are options such as 6.5 Grendel,
6x45 and the various 264s. Training and Tactics are probably more important than a particuliar caliber

DoubleWide 01-01-2011 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrie (Post 16562894)
Don't ARs win at Camp Perry all the time? They are shooting at targets 500yds away with irons aren't they? Are guys who pick a 7.62 x 51 chambered rifle imagining that they'll be shooting the guys with ARs from far enough away that the AR can't reach them? I think an AR or AK will serve the average internet comando just fine. :supergrin:

The difference being that the 7.62x51 will have probably 2.5x the energy at that distance and for paper that doesn't matter.

It's a just different philosophies. I still know more people who hunt with deer with a .308 or .30-06 caliber than a .223. Some of that may tradition, some maybe deer size (northern state)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.